Built an 1892, as seattle’s rebuilding itself after the great fire of 1889, designed by renowned Victorian architect Thomas Bird, mandated to design a residence of grape portions and coffin of opulence, suitable to the owners perceive standing in the burgeoning Seattle elite. A bold statement of the promise the machine age, a declaration of entrepreneurial palace, masterfully masculine, meticulously reincarnated and painstakingly restored of the last 15 years by its current owner. It’s 5,500+ square feet of commanding Eastlake-Victorian architecture has been lovingly amplified with over $300,000 in period or period-appropriate restorative work.

8 Commentson "There Is No Listing. Only Zuul!"

Wow, what a stunner! Gorgeous!! Honestly, the only thing even the slightest bit unpleasant (besides the bill when it comes time to repaint the exterior) is the atrocious lack of language skills mentioned by Marty. Either I missed where that ditty is on the Windermere site or it’s been corrected. The introductory comment below the enlarged first photo has similar wording but isn’t the nightmare quoted above, thankfully. Still there are some interesting missteps under subsequent photos:

– Featuring soaring ceilings, spectacular woodwork of oak and fir, both original and off indeed.
– Interior surfaces are clad in custom oak and fir paneling, and warning stained glass work…
– Plans are available four and expansion of this space.
– …exhaustive research into what the property original look like before it was stocking over in the 1920s.

For handling such a classy listing, Windermere sure doesn’t seem to have the classiest copy writers.

@Emerald63: I found the copy Marty referenced. It was under the photo just after the video.

I think this house is worth all of the $3M. Amazing detail. I still have an aversion to historical societies telling me what I could do with my own house, so I’d have to pass… although, I probably wouldn’t change anything.

@Frodo: Thanks, Frodo. FYI, some historical societies/designations are more stringent than others. Some will allow new construction or alteration of old structures as long as the design passes a vote. Others have outlandishly detailed (aka draconian) application processes that would make George Orwell faint. Also depends on if you’re actually in a historic district, or just near one, and what kind – city, state, or federal. One of my former landlords thought he could just tear off the front porch and replace it with a concrete slab (and maybe a roof) without even getting a building permit, which was ridiculous, since he was a concrete contractor and knew better and he’d already built a wood deck out back to replace the old crumbling one, complete with the building permit posted on the side of the house. I honestly didn’t know who to call for an emergency stay (I found out about his front porch plans when the bulldozer driving into the yard woke me up one morning), so I called the police. I don’t recall exactly how it went from there, but the final result was that he got a “No way, Jose” response from the city planning commission because the house was within 500ft of a designated historic district. I’m kind of possessive about my surroundings, even when I rent. I mean, there are laws about landlords having to notify you first about some things, right? So I take full advantage of those laws. Besides, this was not his first “Don’t ask, Just do it” rodeo. He grew to hate trying to rope this here heifer. Mwahahahahaha!!! On the flip side, there were things I begged him to do, begged long and hard, before he ever got around to them (if then). Perhaps if he’d been more responsive about them, I would never have gotten to the point of wanting to stick a stick in his spokes, ya know?

It’s so splendid to see entries like this one (and several others we’ve been treated to lately) with such glorious woodwork. Sometimes it just goes a long way to lift the mood to be reminded that such skill still exists. :)